We are in opposition to the development proposal for 183 Simcoe Avenue.
Although we collectively support adding more housing options in Georgina, housing must be safe, compatible, and responsibly planned, and this proposal does not meet that criteria.
- Excessive Density and Height
The proposal includes an 8-storey mixed-use building with 74 units, plus 4 semi-detached dwellings containing 8 more units, for a total of 82 units on just 0.52 hectares.
That equals 158 units per hectare.
The Keswick Secondary Plan defines:
- Medium density: 30–60 units/ha
- High density: 60–100 units/ha
This proposal is far beyond even the high-density range.
While provincial policy (PPS 2024) encourages efficiency, it also expects municipalities to accurately identify densities so that servicing, infrastructure, and compatibility can be properly assessed.
- Townhouses Not Permitted Under Current Policy
Part of the property is designated Neighbourhood Residential, which does not permit townhouses or attached units of this scale.
The applicant is relying on an Official Plan Amendment to create a special exception allowing townhouse-style units at nearly five times the allowed density.
This is spot-zoning to fit a proposal that does not belong here.
- Over-Intensification and Poor Transition
Simcoe Avenue and Frederick Street are almost entirely one- and two-storey homes.
An 8-storey tower is a dramatic and inappropriate jump in height and scale.
This conflicts with the Ontario Planning Act, Section 2(f), (h), and (p), which require:
- orderly development,
- healthy and safe communities,
- and appropriate location of growth.
This proposal fails all three.
- Reduced Setbacks and Reduced Open Space
The proposal requests:
- a front-yard setback of only 2.31 metres, and
- 23.4% landscaped open space, instead of the 35% required.
This intensifies privacy impacts, shadowing, and crowding, and proves the building does not physically fit the lot without bending the rules.
- Servicing and Groundwater Hazards
Town Engineering identified major issues:
- groundwater 12–21 cm below grade,
- underground parking not recommended,
- likely continuous pumping,
- groundwater may require treatment before discharge,
- and stormwater system capacity concerns.
These are not optional considerations.
They are serious environmental and safety concerns.
- Parking, Access, and Day-to-Day Operations Remain Unresolved
There are still unresolved issues involving:
- garbage-truck access,
- visitor parking,
- bicycle parking,
- and a missing Transportation Demand Management plan.
If the site doesn’t work on paper, it won’t work once built.
- Tree, Snow-Storage, and Landscape Deficiencies
The plans still fail to fully address:
- tree replacement,
- snow-storage areas,
- and waste-handling locations.
This is another sign the property is being pushed beyond its practical capacity.
- Repeated Mislabelling of “Frederick Street” as “Frederick Road”
This error appears multiple times throughout the application.
If the street next to the property is repeatedly named incorrectly, how can residents trust the accuracy of the access, drainage, and servicing models that depend on correct mapping?
This raises legitimate concerns about the overall reliability of the submission.
- Misclassification of Density
- Despite proposing 158 units/ha, the applicant repeatedly describes the development as “medium density.”
This is misleading and attempts to frame the application as something it is not.
I am concerned that allowing a developer to call 158 units/ha “medium density” would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging future applications to hide high-density figures behind misleading labels.
- Precedent Risk and Prior Council Refusal
Council previously deferred a similar proposal in 2023 due to concerns about density, compatibility, servicing, and transition.
Those same concerns remain today.
Approving this version would contradict previous Council direction and encourage high-density spot zoning in low-rise neighbourhoods.
- Building Design Inconsistent With the Neighbourhood
The modern design is in sharp contrast to the surrounding homes and small-scale commercial buildings.
Maintaining neighbourhood character matters for the identity of our community.
- Misuse of Bill 23
Bill 23 was intended to encourage appropriate, serviceable, and compatible housing — not to justify developments that ignore planning principles, mislabel density, minimize servicing issues, or override neighbourhood context.
Nothing in Bill 23:
- allows misrepresenting density categories,
- removes the requirement for safe servicing,
- eliminates compatibility standards, or
- permits approving developments with unresolved engineering risks.
This application uses the language of Bill 23 to mask serious deficiencies, but the legislation does not exempt applicants from meeting the Planning Act, municipal standards, or the Secondary Plan.
For all these reasons — excessive density, non-permitted uses, poor transition, reduced setbacks, serious servicing risks, design inconsistency, technical inaccuracies, misuse of Bill 23, and the unresolved issues previously identified by Council — we respectfully seek a refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning Amendments.